Examining Commonly Reported Sex Trafficking Indicators From Practitioners’ Perspectives: Findings From a Pilot Study

Abstract

Commonly reported sex trafficking indicators have been disseminated widely by government and non-governmental organizations in trainings aimed to increase identification and referral to resources. However, very little research evaluates such indicators. Drawing from survey responses of 86 social service providers, health care practitioners, and justice system officials in a Midwestern City, this pilot study aimed to examine: (a) the pervasiveness of the commonly reported indicators, (b) the salience of domains of indicators, and (c) the extent to which indicators differ across service populations (U.S.-born minors, U.S.-born adults, foreign born minors, and foreign born adults). The most commonly identified indicators included mental health symptoms of depression ( M = 3.82); low self-esteem ( M = 3.59); anxiety ( M = 3.55); low levels of interpersonal trust ( M = 3.52); sense of fear ( M = 3.36); feelings of shame or guilt ( M =3.34); isolation from family, friends, and communities ( M = 3.3); and fear/distrust of law enforcement ( M = 3.80). The least commonly identified indicators included exhibiting low English proficiency ( M = 1.62), previous history of loitering charges ( M = 1.74), presenting false documents ( M = 1.85), presence of tattoos or branding ( M = 1.89), presenting delayed cognitive development ( M = 1.91), being unaware of one’s location ( M = 1.94), owing large debt ( M = 1.95), previous history of prostitution or drug charges ( M = 1.98, M = 2.01), and physical evidence of torture ( M = 2.07). The mental health domain was identified as especially common among U.S.-born adults ( M = 3.07). Criminal justice involvement was identified as less common among foreign-born minors ( M = 1.82) and foreign-born adults ( M = 1.96). The most commonly identified indicators, according to the service providers, health care workers, and justice system officials who work with them, are inconsistent with many of the indicators that are used frequently across governmental and community trainings. Trainings focusing on diverse case examples of trafficking may be important in strengthening identification of sex trafficked individuals, as well as accounting for regional contexts.

Identification of skin signs in human-trafficking survivors

“…Of the 10 studies included ( Table 1 ), two were surveys of providers of services for trafficked individuals, and 808 total providers were surveyed. Gerassi et al (2021) surveyed participants (N = 86) to identify the most observed indicators of trafficking using a 5-point Likert scale. Participants were in health care (n = 19), prostitution/trafficking services (n = 14), domestic violence/sexual assault services (n = 13), youth services (n = 8), and juvenile justice (n = 5).…”

“…Physical examination findings not described in detail. Kiss et al, 2015 Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam Observational cross-sectional study Sex and labor 1015 men, women, and children accessing posttrafficking services Skin problems (n = 127; 12.5%); deep or long cut (n = 115; 11.3%); very bad burn (n = 31; 3.1%); skin damage or injury (n = 85; 8.4%) Lederer et al, 2014 United States Survey Sex 107 female sex-trafficking survivors 27.4% of respondents reported dermatologic issues (29 of 107) Schwarz, 2017 United States Cross-sectional survey of providers treating trafficked persons Sex, labor 722 providers treating trafficked persons in the U.S. Midwest Presence of tattoos or branding was reported as more likely in those at risk of sex trafficking than in those at risk of labor trafficking Gerassi et al, 2021 United States Survey of providers treating sex-trafficking victims Sex 86 service providers for trafficked people 5-point Likert scale: “presence of tattoos or branding (M = 1.89) and physical evidence of torture (M = 2.07)” …”

Child Sex Trafficking: Strategies for Identification, Counseling, and Advocacy

“…Unfortunately, the general public's depictions of human sex trafficking are fraught with misinformation and inaccurate victim portrayals that may negatively affect counselors' knowledge and attitudes (Baker, 2013;Litam & Lam, 2020;Mielke, 2015) and create additional barriers to victim identification (Litam & Lam, 2020;Okech et al, 2011). For example, when child sex trafficking survivors do not fit images of victims portrayed in the media, they are left marginalized and often unidentified (Gerassi et al, 2018;U.S. Department of Education, 2015;Uy, 2001).…”

Influence of Survivors’ Entrapment Factors and Traffickers’ Characteristics on Perceptions of Interpersonal Social Power While Being Recruited To Be Trafficked

“…Many scholars (Azad, 2019; de Vries & Farrell, 2018; Gajic-Veljanoski & Stewart, 2007; Owens et al, 2014; Rocha-Jimenez et al, 2018) include entrapment factors (e.g., socio-economic status (SES), history of abuse, community support, and social support) as heightening the risk for becoming trafficked. Cultural practices (including faith traditions), patriarchal establishments assuming females have less value than males, and the perception of institutionalized government corruption further add to the vulnerability potential victims face, as well as the position of superiority the traffickers possess (Aronowitz & Dahal, 2014; Azad, 2019; de Vries & Farrell, 2018; Gerassi et al, 2018; Iglesias-Rios et al, 2019; Owens et al, 2014; Rocha-Jimenez et al, 2018).…”

“…Commonly attributed “indicators” of trafficking, which until recently had not been evaluated (see Gerassi et al, 2018), pointed to being controlled, lack of free movement, and signs of physical or mental distress, among others. Recent evidence suggests these may not be accurate indicators of trafficking (Gerassi et al, 2018). In addition, there are a number of risk factors associated with becoming trafficked.…”